Timmy84 said:

TD3 said:

Paula and John were brilliant lyricist and music composures. Yes, Leonard Bernstein compared them to the Gerwhwin brothers and I couldn't agree more.

I say all that to say this...

A lil of the Beatles go a long way for me. During their time, my time I wanted to dance... they weren't making my kind of music to do that to. So there it is. (MHO)

Well damn Paula?

I agree though about them as lyricists/composers. Their strength was really in songwriting then it was the overall package. That's where I give them props. George Harrison wasn't a bad one either. Everyone and their mama covered his "Something".

I was wondering if any one would catch that...

My older brother didn't like the Beatles and use to call Paul, Paula. Boy is crazy, take it from me.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

Well damn Paula?

I agree though about them as lyricists/composers. Their strength was really in songwriting then it was the overall package. That's where I give them props. George Harrison wasn't a bad one either. Everyone and their mama covered his "Something".

I was wondering if any one would catch that...

My older brother didn't like the Beatles and use to call Paul, Paula. Boy is crazy, take it from me.

I feel ya... I did hear Paul get dogged constantly like that (being called "Paula" or "a girl"). So he must hear that often or heard it during the Beats years. I'm sure when they were besties, John used to poke fun at him and call him "Paula" in his spare time...

Timmy84 said:

Hmm, so I'm supposed to just not say how I feel about the Beats? Because that's what it sounds like from some of y'all.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

AlexdeParis said:

Timmy84 said:

Hmm, so I'm supposed to just not say how I feel about the Beats? Because that's what it sounds like from some of y'all.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

Sorry for the assumption.

Timmy84 said:

TD3 said:

I was wondering if any one would catch that...

My older brother didn't like the Beatles and use to call Paul, Paula. Boy is crazy, take it from me.

I feel ya... I did hear Paul get dogged constantly like that (being called "Paula" or "a girl"). So he must hear that often or heard it during the Beats years. I'm sure when they were besties, John used to poke fun at him and call him "Paula" in his spare time...

I'm sure he did, John had a rep of being brutally sarcastic.

Paul never had the persona of being any where close to macho/masculine. At that time, men didn't know and hell, didn't wanna hear anything about having a feminine /sensitive side... and a guy in music? WFT?! That's why Paul went through that full beard phase.... his own special way of bulking up.

I'm going to leave him alone by all accounts he's a decent, nice, and very rich guy.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

I feel ya... I did hear Paul get dogged constantly like that (being called "Paula" or "a girl"). So he must hear that often or heard it during the Beats years. I'm sure when they were besties, John used to poke fun at him and call him "Paula" in his spare time...

I'm sure he did, John had a rep of being brutally sarcastic.

Paul never had the persona of being any where close to macho/masculine. At that time, men didn't know and hell, didn't wanna hear anything about having a feminine /sensitive side... and a guy in music? WFT?! That's why Paul went through that full beard phase.... his own special way of bulking up.

I'm going to leave him alone by all accounts he's a decent, nice, and very rich guy.

You notice most of the musicians who had sensitive sides all went out and had beards in the '70s? I think the Beats did it because they were tired of their teeny-bopper image, hence why they decided not to do anymore concerts. To be honest I did see them play on YouTube and they surely didn't perform to the ability you think they had. They just kinda stood there and whipped their heads side to side. So I can see why they said "fuck this, we're just gonna stay in the studio".

[Edited 3/25/12 21:18pm]

mjscarousal said:

AlexdeParis said:

Timmy84 said: I'd be wary of trying to pigeonhole the Beatles. The group had all but broken up by the time funk went mainstream, but they definitely used elements of various genres in a number of ways. For instance, I can certainly hear what made Ike & Tina want to cover "Come Together." And while I wouldn't call John Lennon a "soul singer" by any stretch, there's something in both the music and the delivery of, say, "Don't Let Me Down" that is soulful IMO. I'd also argue that songs like "Let It Be" aren't too far away from some form of R&B, as it were. All that being said, why classify at all? The Beatles wrote and performed great songs. Anyone who can't hear that... well, that's their loss.

I greatly agree with that.

They did have alot of soulful delivery on alot of their songs while they didnt sing soul music.... I would classify Let It Be as more along the lines of gospel than R&B. I dont think no one is trying to pigeonhole the Beatles but it is interesting in putting alot of their music in perspective. They had alot of great songs and lyrics but they didnt do alot of experimentation with those genres mentioned which this thread exactly made me realize even more. It doesnt take anything away from them.

And considering Ray Charles had bridged that gap only 10-15 years earlier, that's a distinction I don't think is necessary. But even if it were, what about "Oh Darling"? That's an R&B song, plain and simple. I stand by what I said.

Timmy84 said:

AlexdeParis said:

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

Sorry for the assumption.

It's cool, man.

AlexdeParis said:

Timmy84 said:

Sorry for the assumption.

It's cool, man.

I'm gonna get flack for this, but the reason the Beatles were so popular was because white people liked them. They were a pop group that the little white girlies went crazy over. Why? I have no idea. To me, they're just a dull boy band that started a trend. But we all know that pop music is the weakest type of music

Terrib3Towel said:

I'm gonna get flack for this, but the reason the Beatles were so popular was because white people liked them. They were a pop group that the little white girlies went crazy over. Why? I have no idea. To me, they're just a dull boy band that started a trend. But we all know that pop music is the weakest type of music

Well to be frank, The Beats' early music was no different from some of the American pop songs that were invading the airwaves regardless of what color they were lol. American deejays played them because they were "interesting"... but sometimes I do have to wonder... why were they played so often? Was it payola? I mean who can explain five, six, hell ten songs on the charts at the same time? Who the hell does that? I guess Brian Epstein was like "Col. Tom Parker ain't got shit on me". He basically had the Beatles follow Elvis' path though Elvis onstage was a way more interesting and exciting performer than the [fake British accent]four lads from Liverpuuuuul[/fake British accent].

Terrib3Towel said:

I'm gonna get flack for this, but the reason the Beatles were so popular was because white people liked them. They were a pop group that the little white girlies went crazy over. Why? I have no idea. To me, they're just a dull boy band that started a trend. But we all know that pop music is the weakest type of music

Because the parents didn't want them creaming over any black artist it was the 60's

HuMpThAnG said:

Terrib3Towel said:

I'm gonna get flack for this, but the reason the Beatles were so popular was because white people liked them. They were a pop group that the little white girlies went crazy over. Why? I have no idea. To me, they're just a dull boy band that started a trend. But we all know that pop music is the weakest type of music

Because the parents didn't want them creaming over any black artist it was the 60's

Right. I could see them scoffing at seeing their child with the Going to a Go-Go album but okay with The Beatles for Sale.

TD3 said:

Paula and John were brilliant lyricist and music composures. Yes, Leonard Bernstein compared them to the Gerwhwin brothers and I couldn't agree more.

I say all that to say this...

A lil of the Beatles go a long way for me. During their time, my time I wanted to dance... they weren't making my kind of music to do that to. So there it is. (MHO)

Timmy84 said:

TD3 said:

Paula and John were brilliant lyricist and music composures. Yes, Leonard Bernstein compared them to the Gerwhwin brothers and I couldn't agree more.

I say all that to say this...

A lil of the Beatles go a long way for me. During their time, my time I wanted to dance... they weren't making my kind of music to do that to. So there it is. (MHO)

Well damn Paula?

I agree though about them as lyricists/composers. Their strength was really in songwriting then it was the overall package. That's where I give them props. George Harrison wasn't a bad one either. Everyone and their mama covered his "Something".

And this was one of George's personal favorite versions of his song:

Timmy84 said:

Right. I could see them scoffing at seeing their child with the Going to a Go-Go album but okay with The Beatles for Sale.

Not really. Many parents in the US were shocked at the Fabs long hair (for the time) and didn't want their sons looking like them. There were people talking about the group was dangerous for the youth, and others starting "Stamp Out The Beatles" campaigns. Magazines were writing that the girls screaming at their concerts had some kind of mass mental problems. They also wrote that The Beatles were a fad and wouldn't last long.

Rubber Soul is my Fav. check that out. The Doors to me were better lyrically.

Best pop/rock band of all time

Period

JoeTyler said:

Best pop/rock band of all time

Period

Agreed!

Many people don't understand how good they were for the times and how innovated they were. They took music (songwriting and recording) to a whole other level. They have dozens and dozens of songs that will endure for centuries.

If some want to turn it into a "black and white" thing, go ahead, but you're losing out on the pure joy of their music.

Empress said:

JoeTyler said:

Best pop/rock band of all time

Period

Agreed!

Many people don't understand how good they were for the times and how innovated they were. They took music (songwriting and recording) to a whole other level. They have dozens and dozens of songs that will endure for centuries.

If some want to turn it into a "black and white" thing, go ahead, but you're losing out on the pure joy of their music.

yeah

obviously, the Beatles are not very influential when it comes to soul, funk, r&B, electronic music, heavy-metal, etc

but damn, ANY post-69 pop/rock band (specially british acts/bands) are basically following the blueprint of the Beatles, specially the 90s bands and the "modern" pop/rock acts of the 00s...

Terrib3Towel said:

I'm gonna get flack for this, but the reason the Beatles were so popular was because white people liked them. They were a pop group that the little white girlies went crazy over. Why? I have no idea. To me, they're just a dull boy band that started a trend. But we all know that pop music is the weakest type of music

Hmm...yes and no. Long post to follow...

It has more to do with the era and the counter culture of the time I think. Around that time a lot of baby boomers were going to college and learning a lot about European arts/music, especially arts criticism and then there was the Vietnam War, the assassination of JFK, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing in the 60s, birth control came into being, drug use was becoming way more popular, many of the baby boomers were the product of the isolationism policy period that the US had completely abandoned after WWII. Along with the massive developments of technology people were becoming way more conscious of the political and social situations of the times, also the rise (in)famous hippie culture. Naturally, what was going on at the time was being reflected in a lot of the music of many musicians. So, it's no surprise that people were gravitating to that type of music.

Now, here's the thing: Around this time Rolling Stone magazine had its beginnings. Rolling Stone felt that 'real' music or 'real art' was that kind of music. They, basically, frowned upon any type of music otherwise unless it was the blues or if they were recreating that type of music that they considerd to be well...music, one example is Jimi Hendrix. One article in the Rolling Stones back in the 60s claimed that they were rejecting the Negro that was trying so hard to achieve the kind of acceptance into mainstream culture that so many white musicians were trying to escape from (re: MOTOWN) and they were rejecting white artists who emulated that kind of music as well. They had labeled what they had considered to be 'real music' or 'real art.' Which was, basically, anything that they deemed appropriate for the times. Hence the beginnings of 'rock criticism.'

Back on Billboard the black music chart and the pop chart had been combined back 63-65, but had separated again due to changing tastes as I pointed out in the paragraphs above. Some people claim that the Beatles signified that change in tastes, but I think it's the entire British Invasion really coupled with changing attitudes of that time. Personally though, I really think that this was a way for some white males, of the time, to protest/oppose the integration of blacks into 'white' society. It would explain why rock music is always seen as a 'white' thing. Or even why Jimi Hendrix is no longer really seen as a black artist anymore nor is he really even referred to as such. It's the same as what art historians did to Egypt. They separated it from African art in general, because they felt (or maybe still free) that Africans, in general, are not advanced enough intellectually to be able to produce such wonders.

So what does this all have to do with the Beatles being largely popular with white people? I think that for many baby boomers, knowing how many of them do exist out there still, their music represents a changing time, but a time where they were trying to get back what is theirs as well, I feel. In no way do I think, even objectively, the Beatles can be considered the 'greatest of all time' nor do I think that their work as anymore weight than anyone else's work out there. It's like here in this very forum when everyone longs for 80s music even though that decade churned out just as much awful shit as any other decade of popular music. While the Beatles did influence and pioneered some studio techniques, they have just as much to thank all of those studio technicians and their producer, George Martin for a HUGE portion of that just as many other artists have thank those who they have worked with.

Also, they were pretty popular at that time as well. Some people feel that many people put The Beatles on that pedestal because they have sold so many records, which, could, very well be true since sales = popularity, but sales =/ quality imo. Some feel The Beatles encapsulate all of that, but imo it's really just opinions and that's all it will ever be.

Didn't George Martin produce the majority of their albums anyway and then Phil Spector? I don't recall none of the Beatles listed as producers of their own stuff.

JoeTyler said:

obviously, the Beatles are not very influential when it comes to soul, funk, r&B, electronic music, heavy-metal, etc

...

I don't know. What about the Funkadelic version of "She Loves You" (at 4:29 here):

^ Can't tell if it's influence or mockery...

JoeTyler said:

Hold it, stop right there potna...

Gotta correct ya on a few things.

"Helter Skelter" did NOT start heavy metal. I think around the time of its release (1968) there was a record that year called "Summertime Blues". The original version was by Eddie Cochran nearly a decade earlier but it was brought back to playlists that year by a group called Blue Cheer.

Some even say this song, released in 1967, was also the start of heavy metal:

And this group definitely had a record that can categorize with early heavy metal (as well as punk music):

----

Heavy metal wasn't something "invented", it was just another name that music critics thought of to describe the "new rock music" because they knew it wasn't psychedelic rock or acid rock or even blues rock. The Jeff Beck Group, Led Zeppelin, Cream and them are more credited with the origins of heavy metal.

To me, "Helter Skelter" is a fine example of a hard rock song, more so than the "beginning of heavy metal". Lots of people who investigated the Beatles' music post-1966 say that some of their music has been overrated due to them being referred to as the "end-all, be all of rock music" which they never was. As a POP act, they were among the greatest, but rock itself? They had strong competition and they were easily outmatched.

The hardest thing actually about "Helter Skelter" occurs near the end:

Timmy84 said:

^ Can't tell if it's influence or mockery...

The Beatles themselves did a quick joking rendition of "She Loves You" at the end of "All You Need Is Love." Maybe the coda to "Funk Gets Stronger" was a homage to that. In any case, it's doubtful whether George Clinton would have come up with Free Your Mind if the Beatles never existed. Also, Eddie Hazel covered "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" on his solo album.